>
> Hm, what does "closet homosexual" mean? Your arguments seem perfectly
> valid
> for BIsexuality - indeed I've heard more than one researcher claim that
> bisexuallity arose to strengthen social bonds - but higher social
> status
> would hardly translate into reproductive success for persons who are
> strictly homosexual, not wanting to have sex with people of the
> opposite
> sex. From the evolutionary POV, (strict) homosexuallity does seem quite
> suicidal.
>

Still, many sexed species, and not only the nearest to human kind, show the
phenomenon of strict homosexuality (nearly all show the phenomenon of
bisexuality). Most of them show strict homosexuality of *females*, which, from
an evolutionary POV, should be strictly impossible, It doesn't seem to be that
suicidal, or this behaviour wouldn't be that frequent.

>
> I agree. Genes, environment, culture, exposture to chemicals all almost
> certainly play a part in my opinion.
>

I agree (partly) for the first three, but not the last one. As far back as we
get in the past, homosexuality has always been present, in all cultures, even
the least tolerant ones. Moreover, there's absolutely no sign that homosexuality
is more frequent now than it used to be. More open, yes, but not more frequent.
Since exposure to chemicals was probably quite low at those times... I keep on
comparing with being left-handed. The proportion of left-handed people is the
same in every culture, everywhere in the world, and even back in times. Still,
no one has ever found a genetic reason for it. As for environment and culture,
it doesn't go well with the fact that the proportion is the same everywhere. You
also have a continuum between strict left-handedness and strict
right-handedness. All this leads me to think that sexual orientation probably
has a mechanism not unlike the mechanism of writing orientation. As for what it
is, I'm as ignorant as everyone else...